Retired Cop Kills Man for Texting (1 Viewer)

[Spanky267]

Activate the Timmay Fully Automatic Post Howitzer aka "Thread Destroyer"

As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see how Tim could be wrong in this instance. Even if the wife did grab the gun with her hand, causing it to fire though her hand into the guys chest, which would mean the retired cop's intent to kill would be minimal, Tim is absolutely right in saying that if the guy wasn't allowed to carry, no one dies. Worst case, the retired cop lost his mind and murdered the guy. Best case, it was an accident of an argument and scuffle. In either case, it's a black eye to gun ownership.

The thing is most gun control measures carve out exemptions for active and retired law enforcement officers. Even if carrying concealed were denied to the general public in Florida it may not have extended to current or retired law enforcement officers like Mr. Reeves.

Terrible tragedy and an instance where the older gentleman, Mr. Reeves should have left the theatre, asked management for a refund and seen the movie at a later showing. No reason for anyone to die over something so trivial as texting during movie previews.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Activate the Timmay Fully Automatic Post Howitzer aka "Thread Destroyer"

As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see how Tim could be wrong in this instance. Even if the wife did grab the gun with her hand, causing it to fire though her hand into the guys chest, which would mean the retired cop's intent to kill would be minimal, Tim is absolutely right in saying that if the guy wasn't allowed to carry, no one dies. Worst case, the retired cop lost his mind and murdered the guy. Best case, it was an accident of an argument and scuffle. In either case, it's a black eye to gun ownership.

also by Tim.

Not necessarily. The ex cop could have gone to his vehicle to get a gun or could have waited until after the movie and shot him in the parking lot. It's not 100% certain no one dies if the ex cop isn't allowed to carry.

Bull####. You and everyone else knows that nothing happens if he doesn't have a gun right then and there.

Calm down there. I hope you aren't carrying!

No, no one knows for certain what would have happened. Keep an open mind.

 

[Clifford]

Activate the Timmay Fully Automatic Post Howitzer aka "Thread Destroyer"

As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see how Tim could be wrong in this instance. Even if the wife did grab the gun with her hand, causing it to fire though her hand into the guys chest, which would mean the retired cop's intent to kill would be minimal, Tim is absolutely right in saying that if the guy wasn't allowed to carry, no one dies. Worst case, the retired cop lost his mind and murdered the guy. Best case, it was an accident of an argument and scuffle. In either case, it's a black eye to gun ownership.

also by Tim.

Not necessarily. The ex cop could have gone to his vehicle to get a gun or could have waited until after the movie and shot him in the parking lot. It's not 100% certain no one dies if the ex cop isn't allowed to carry.

Bull####. You and everyone else knows that nothing happens if he doesn't have a gun right then and there.

Calm down there. I hope you aren't carrying!

No, no one knows for certain what would have happened. Keep an open mind.

Cmon dude. He could have gone out and bought the guy flowers and apologized. He could have ripped his clothes off and streaked the movie theater in protest. Anything could have happened. Deduction and logic point the way. Use them.

 

[Stinger Ray]

Activate the Timmay Fully Automatic Post Howitzer aka "Thread Destroyer"

As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see how Tim could be wrong in this instance. Even if the wife did grab the gun with her hand, causing it to fire though her hand into the guys chest, which would mean the retired cop's intent to kill would be minimal, Tim is absolutely right in saying that if the guy wasn't allowed to carry, no one dies. Worst case, the retired cop lost his mind and murdered the guy. Best case, it was an accident of an argument and scuffle. In either case, it's a black eye to gun ownership.

also by Tim.

Not necessarily. The ex cop could have gone to his vehicle to get a gun or could have waited until after the movie and shot him in the parking lot. It's not 100% certain no one dies if the ex cop isn't allowed to carry.

Bull####. You and everyone else knows that nothing happens if he doesn't have a gun right then and there.

Calm down there. I hope you aren't carrying!

No, no one knows for certain what would have happened. Keep an open mind.

Cmon dude. He could have gone out and bought the guy flowers and apologized. He could have ripped his clothes off and streaked the movie theater in protest. Anything could have happened. Deduction and logic point the way. Use them.

Exactly...anything could have happened which is why you can't say for 100% certainty the man wouldn't have been shot. Of course the chances of that happening go down a lot but it's not a given.

 

[Clifford]

OK semantic Sam, you got me there. Let's shave off .00001% of my certainty to bring it in line.

 

[Statorama]

If the shooter looked like Ving Rhames instead of grandpa Simpson, the texter turns off his phone and shuts up.

 

[Politician Spock]

Different thread, but Rayderr stepped up in support of the shooter:

The "old man" was wrong for using his gun. But let's not oversimplify the situation with your statement. He wasn't shot for texting. The "old man" didn't think to himself "Hey, that guy's texting!" BLAM! They had an heated argument, the guy threw a bag of popcorn at the old man, which turned out to be a classic mistake of bringing a bag of popcorn to a gun fight, and the old man ended up returning fire. Again, he was in the wrong and I suspect he will be convicted, but it's not the scenario you paint.

I knew it wouldn't take long.

How is that defending the shooter?

Rayderr's point is obvious, and it's not defending the shooter.

The retired cop asked the father numerous times stop texting. When the father refused, he left the theater, and then came back in. Up to this point it looks like the retired cop did everything right while the father kept doing everything wrong.

The father, apparently so bothered by the prospect of being tattled on, confronted the retired cop to the point where it became a heated argument with the father throwing popcorn at the retirerd cop. Again, up to this point the retired cop had done everything right and nothing wrong, while the father is still continuing to be a complete ####.

THEN.... then retired cop did something wrong, and that wrong action is a thousand times worse than what the father had been doing up to that point. He shot at him because the father was trying to pick a fight with someone he assumed tattled on him.

 

[Clifford]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

 

[jwb]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

 

[James Daulton]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Is this concept really that difficult for people?

 

[pantagrapher]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

Because you and your ilk are insane. It's OK.

 

[Politician Spock]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

 

[James Daulton]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

Why? Just so no one can take your right or so that you have the gun in case you need it?

 

[James Daulton]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

 

[jwb]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

actually, what he is saying seems to be the case, going from what's been reported. The guy asked him to stop, went out to report him, came back after apparently failing in this, and the victim was the one who started in again, stood up, threw the popcorn, etc. Not that any of that justifies killing, but the old guy is very likely going to say he felt threatened. That will be for a jury to determine.

 

[jonessed]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

He's clarifying the reason the guy was shot, not justifying it.

 

[Two Deep]

Activate the Timmay Fully Automatic Post Howitzer aka "Thread Destroyer"

As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see how Tim could be wrong in this instance. Even if the wife did grab the gun with her hand, causing it to fire though her hand into the guys chest, which would mean the retired cop's intent to kill would be minimal, Tim is absolutely right in saying that if the guy wasn't allowed to carry, no one dies. Worst case, the retired cop lost his mind and murdered the guy. Best case, it was an accident of an argument and scuffle. In either case, it's a black eye to gun ownership.

also by Tim.

Not necessarily. The ex cop could have gone to his vehicle to get a gun or could have waited until after the movie and shot him in the parking lot. It's not 100% certain no one dies if the ex cop isn't allowed to carry.

Bull####. You and everyone else knows that nothing happens if he doesn't have a gun right then and there.

The same could be said that if the young guy doesn't have his cell phone with him in the movie theater nothing happens.

 

[Statorama]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

I thought the ironic thing was that the movie was Lone Survivor

 

[jonessed]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

actually, what he is saying seems to be the case, going from what's been reported. The guy asked him to stop, went out to report him, came back after apparently failing in this, and the victim was the one who started in again, stood up, threw the popcorn, etc. Not that any of that justifies killing, but the old guy is very likely going to say he felt threatened. That will be for a jury to determine.

I imagine the movie theater manager will also get fired. Not that it matters that much, but he really screwed up.

 

[jwb]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

Why? Just so no one can take your right or so that you have the gun in case you need it?

The latter.

To be clear, it's not to pull out in an argument over texting (road rage, etc). But as long as other people out there have guns, I want one too. I don't get into the debate whether we should have guns. I go by what is. And what "is" is a society where, like it or not, people have guns. That being the case, I choose to be armed.

 

[msommer]

Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves,

Whoa, whoa, whoa! You can't go throwing money around like that!

Makin' it rain...

 

[Limp Ditka]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

actually, what he is saying seems to be the case, going from what's been reported. The guy asked him to stop, went out to report him, came back after apparently failing in this, and the victim was the one who started in again, stood up, threw the popcorn, etc. Not that any of that justifies killing, but the old guy is very likely going to say he felt threatened. That will be for a jury to determine.

I imagine the movie theater manager will also get fired. Not that it matters that much, but he really screwed up.

Depends on what the theater policy is. If SOP is leave it as is until after the feature begins, then the mgr did the right thing.

 

[Gr00vus]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

There's no way more people carrying makes things better in this situation.

 

[CurlyNight]

No bond is being set for this cop. Has quite an impressive resume during his time as a cop. Wild.

 

[Two Deep]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

He can and he did....The shooter now has to live with the consequences. I wonder if the young guy would have continued to be rude if he knew he was going to end up shot. Maybe if we all stopped and thought about what the consequences of our actions could be we would change our behavior.

 

[Clifford]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

actually, what he is saying seems to be the case, going from what's been reported. The guy asked him to stop, went out to report him, came back after apparently failing in this, and the victim was the one who started in again, stood up, threw the popcorn, etc. Not that any of that justifies killing, but the old guy is very likely going to say he felt threatened. That will be for a jury to determine.

All I have heard is that the shooter asked him to stop, victim said he was texting his daughter. When the shooter returned, the victim asked if he had gone to tell the manager on him. A confrontation ensued between the two. That does not say how it escalated or who escalated the situation. No reason to assume the victim escalated it from that question.

 

[msommer]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

actually, what he is saying seems to be the case, going from what's been reported. The guy asked him to stop, went out to report him, came back after apparently failing in this, and the victim was the one who started in again, stood up, threw the popcorn, etc. Not that any of that justifies killing, but the old guy is very likely going to say he felt threatened. That will be for a jury to determine.

And if they clear the retired cop because he was standing his ground, being insulted and assaulted by popcorn?

 

[Clifford]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

He can and he did....The shooter now has to live with the consequences. I wonder if the young guy would have continued to be rude if he knew he was going to end up shot. Maybe if we all stopped and thought about what the consequences of our actions could be we would change our behavior.

This really sounds like you are in favor of a society where people are forced to fall in line with codes of conduct out of fear.

 

[Clifford]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

Why? Just so no one can take your right or so that you have the gun in case you need it?

The latter.

To be clear, it's not to pull out in an argument over texting (road rage, etc). But as long as other people out there have guns, I want one too. I don't get into the debate whether we should have guns. I go by what is. And what "is" is a society where, like it or not, people have guns. That being the case, I choose to be armed.

Sure works out well for manufacturers of guns and ammo.

 

[jwb]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

There's no way more people carrying makes things better in this situation.

I don't care about more people. I don't care about the NRA, etc.

I do care about the safety of my wife and I when out. I care about being able to have the ultimate equalizer if cornered and have no choice.

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

actually, what he is saying seems to be the case, going from what's been reported. The guy asked him to stop, went out to report him, came back after apparently failing in this, and the victim was the one who started in again, stood up, threw the popcorn, etc. Not that any of that justifies killing, but the old guy is very likely going to say he felt threatened. That will be for a jury to determine.

And if they clear the retired cop because he was standing his ground, being insulted and assaulted by popcorn?

oh, it's wrong. There's no justification for pulling out the gun. None at all. I say this as someone who always carries.

Why is everyone assuming that if you say the victim was acting like an ### (or whatnot) that translates into justification.

 

[jwb]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

Why? Just so no one can take your right or so that you have the gun in case you need it?

The latter.

To be clear, it's not to pull out in an argument over texting (road rage, etc). But as long as other people out there have guns, I want one too. I don't get into the debate whether we should have guns. I go by what is. And what "is" is a society where, like it or not, people have guns. That being the case, I choose to be armed.

Sure works out well for manufacturers of guns and ammo.

again, that sort of thing does not concern me. I don't advocate everyone having a gun, or that guns make us safer (they clearly do not).

If I had my choice, I'd want a world with no guns. I'd like that.

But that's not our world. So until it is, I'll continue being armed.

 

[Two Deep]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

He can and he did....The shooter now has to live with the consequences. I wonder if the young guy would have continued to be rude if he knew he was going to end up shot. Maybe if we all stopped and thought about what the consequences of our actions could be we would change our behavior.

This really sounds like you are in favor of a society where people are forced to fall in line with codes of conduct out of fear.

Not necessarily out of fear, but maybe out of respect. None of this happens if the young guy says to the old man...sorry ,no problem I'm just going to finish checking on my daughter and I will be shuting it off.

 

[T Bell]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

I'm not at all saying this is what happened, but there's a theoretical way in which this shooting could be justified.

That would require:

1) the deceased was the one who escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical;

2) his physical threat to the shooter was enough for the shooter to have been in fear of significant bodily harm; and

3) the shooter could not simply walk away from the confrontation, i.e. he was "cornered".

We don't have the fact that support this scenario (obviously a thrown bag of popcorn isn't enough for #2, for example, and at least at one point the shooter was able to leave the theater), but there's also a lot we don't know.

 

[MattFancy]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

He can and he did....The shooter now has to live with the consequences. I wonder if the young guy would have continued to be rude if he knew he was going to end up shot. Maybe if we all stopped and thought about what the consequences of our actions could be we would change our behavior.

Texting in a movie theater = getting shot now?

 

[Terpman22]

Just another reason to have Google Glass

 

[Two Deep]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

He can and he did....The shooter now has to live with the consequences. I wonder if the young guy would have continued to be rude if he knew he was going to end up shot. Maybe if we all stopped and thought about what the consequences of our actions could be we would change our behavior.

Texting in a movie theater = getting shot now?

As of yesterday......yes.

 

[Joe T]

Regarding "texting noise": some jack wagons may lack the intellectual firepower to figure out how to then off the "type tone" that beeps every time you type a letter. Guy could have been beeping up a storm.

That said:

I am pro 2nd amendment. I carry daily. This is 1000000% not justified in any way shape or form and the guy should be convicted of 2nd degree murder and spend the rest of his life in prison. Horrible tragedy.

Those gun control nitwits like Clifford should show a little class and maturity in here, though I don't anticipate they will.

Sorry but I don't think it's classless to point out that these tragedies are more likely because people carry guns in public places. That is exactly to the point, and it is mature to point it out.

Its crazy ...gun advocates will argue we need more guns so things like that batman movie shooting dont happen,people could defend themselves. At the same time we have a guy here who is legally armed yet obviously a crack pot who snapped over a text and blew away a young family man ....its all bad in my eyes .

How classless and immature of you.

 

[msommer]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

There's no way more people carrying makes things better in this situation.

I don't care about more people. I don't care about the NRA, etc.

I do care about the safety of my wife and I when out. I care about being able to have the ultimate equalizer if cornered and have no choice.

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

actually, what he is saying seems to be the case, going from what's been reported. The guy asked him to stop, went out to report him, came back after apparently failing in this, and the victim was the one who started in again, stood up, threw the popcorn, etc. Not that any of that justifies killing, but the old guy is very likely going to say he felt threatened. That will be for a jury to determine.

And if they clear the retired cop because he was standing his ground, being insulted and assaulted by popcorn?

oh, it's wrong. There's no justification for pulling out the gun. None at all. I say this as someone who always carries.

Why is everyone assuming that if you say the victim was acting like an ### (or whatnot) that translates into justification.

Actually I was hoping that this would lead to acknowledgement that a change in the legislation would then be required rather than an 'oh'

 

[Clifford]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

He can and he did....The shooter now has to live with the consequences. I wonder if the young guy would have continued to be rude if he knew he was going to end up shot. Maybe if we all stopped and thought about what the consequences of our actions could be we would change our behavior.

This really sounds like you are in favor of a society where people are forced to fall in line with codes of conduct out of fear.

Not necessarily out of fear, but maybe out of respect. None of this happens if the young guy says to the old man...sorry ,no problem I'm just going to finish checking on my daughter and I will be shuting it off.

We don't know this didn't happen. The shooter could have asked once, asked again, and third time in the time it took to finish the last text.

Given his ultimate reaction I am not inclined to think the shooter showed an extraordinary amount of patience.

 

[EddieSpaghetti]

Ive seriously been appauled by some of the comments in here...whether shtick or not...or dry quipping....seriously disgusting

Especially when you knew that someone who reads these boards can roll their chair 9ft and be at the victims wifes desk...

 

[Joe T]

Activate the Timmay Fully Automatic Post Howitzer aka "Thread Destroyer"

As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see how Tim could be wrong in this instance. Even if the wife did grab the gun with her hand, causing it to fire though her hand into the guys chest, which would mean the retired cop's intent to kill would be minimal, Tim is absolutely right in saying that if the guy wasn't allowed to carry, no one dies. Worst case, the retired cop lost his mind and murdered the guy. Best case, it was an accident of an argument and scuffle. In either case, it's a black eye to gun ownership.

Also, it's a black eye to texting in a movie theater.

 

[Clifford]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

I'm not at all saying this is what happened, but there's a theoretical way in which this shooting could be justified.

That would require:

1) the deceased was the one who escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical;

2) his physical threat to the shooter was enough for the shooter to have been in fear of significant bodily harm; and

3) the shooter could not simply walk away from the confrontation, i.e. he was "cornered".

We don't have the fact that support this scenario (obviously a thrown bag of popcorn isn't enough for #2, for example, and at least at one point the shooter was able to leave the theater), but there's also a lot we don't know.

And we're off.

 

[Politician Spock]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

He can and he did....The shooter now has to live with the consequences. I wonder if the young guy would have continued to be rude if he knew he was going to end up shot. Maybe if we all stopped and thought about what the consequences of our actions could be we would change our behavior.

This really sounds like you are in favor of a society where people are forced to fall in line with codes of conduct out of fear.

I would much prefer a society where people are voluntarily considerate and respectful of others.

 

[jwb]

The ironic thing is, as much as these incidents make the anti-gun people yell louder, they also strengthen my (and every CC person's) resolve to always carry.

There's no way more people carrying makes things better in this situation.

I don't care about more people. I don't care about the NRA, etc.

I do care about the safety of my wife and I when out. I care about being able to have the ultimate equalizer if cornered and have no choice.

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

actually, what he is saying seems to be the case, going from what's been reported. The guy asked him to stop, went out to report him, came back after apparently failing in this, and the victim was the one who started in again, stood up, threw the popcorn, etc. Not that any of that justifies killing, but the old guy is very likely going to say he felt threatened. That will be for a jury to determine.

And if they clear the retired cop because he was standing his ground, being insulted and assaulted by popcorn?

oh, it's wrong. There's no justification for pulling out the gun. None at all. I say this as someone who always carries.

Why is everyone assuming that if you say the victim was acting like an ### (or whatnot) that translates into justification.

Actually I was hoping that this would lead to acknowledgement that a change in the legislation would then be required rather than an 'oh'

well, that's not the sentence I wrote, or the thought, but whatever.

I said "oh, it's wrong" to your stand your ground statement. Then I said there's no justification. What more do you want? The law is wrong in that respect.

 

[James Daulton]

Just one more example that our society seems to be crumbling.

Are the carry laws now different than they were, say in the 50's or 60's?

 

[T Bell]

It's defending his actions as a reaction to the victim's actions which is defending the shooter by defending his actions.

And you are assuming tons of ####, none of which is even corroborated by any report of people who were there.

If you are to be allowed to live in a society you have to be able to handle minor annoyances without killing people.

Shooting him is undefensible.

As for what happened before the shooting, everyone said he told him numerous times to stop texting, then left and came back, and then the father upsettlingly accussed him of tattling on him. At that point the facts begin to get muddy.

What's the point of the above? Maybe the father was acting like an #####, doesn't matter, you can't freaking shoot him.

I'm not at all saying this is what happened, but there's a theoretical way in which this shooting could be justified.

That would require:

1) the deceased was the one who escalated the confrontation from verbal to physical;

2) his physical threat to the shooter was enough for the shooter to have been in fear of significant bodily harm; and

3) the shooter could not simply walk away from the confrontation, i.e. he was "cornered".

We don't have the fact that support this scenario (obviously a thrown bag of popcorn isn't enough for #2, for example, and at least at one point the shooter was able to leave the theater), but there's also a lot we don't know.

And we're off.

Oh I'm sorry, sweetheart, is this interfering with your agenda in this thread?

 

[T Bell]

Just one more example that our society seems to be crumbling.

Are the carry laws now different than they were, say in the 50's or 60's?

If anything the carry laws are more restrictive.

 

[Politician Spock]

Activate the Timmay Fully Automatic Post Howitzer aka "Thread Destroyer"

As much as it pains me to say it, I don't see how Tim could be wrong in this instance. Even if the wife did grab the gun with her hand, causing it to fire though her hand into the guys chest, which would mean the retired cop's intent to kill would be minimal, Tim is absolutely right in saying that if the guy wasn't allowed to carry, no one dies. Worst case, the retired cop lost his mind and murdered the guy. Best case, it was an accident of an argument and scuffle. In either case, it's a black eye to gun ownership.

Also, it's a black eye to texting in a movie theater.

GASP!!! How dare you justify the shooter?!?!?

 

[TobiasFunke]

At some point Americans need to stop discussing things that happen in Florida as if they're somehow relevant to the rest of us.

 

[Joe T]

Retired guy will get off with probation.

Mark it down.